Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 9, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PST

2:00 pm
for not priority tiger's them more. >> the puc went through a process two or three years ago now where the fact that the technically which he water system handing had an out of balance financial plan that causes the general manager to say we're out of balance how are we going to address the fact we're 23i7b8 out of balance. the general manager came to the board and mayor and requested a rate there to help restore and support is the funding necessary to avoid the maintenance. we did receive a partial you know the recommendation for a general fund increase was passed
2:01 pm
but at a lower level than recommended and so we aren't able to restore outlining all the funding within the puc budget for all program areas and when i say program areas i'm talking about the infrastructure improvements in our generation assets of country i'm talking about our energy efficiency and renewal programs in san francisco and i'm talking about street lights. those are the program areas that are in consolidation for street light fund our net operating fund are what we are and have to be allocated among the responsibilities >> can you help us under and the board of supervisors would have to agree when you talk about the general offhand that's other city departments they pay
2:02 pm
for electricity and if the full increase is granted would that be significant. >> it's an opportunity yes. >> what are - >> i wouldn't tell but there are plans for improvements that have to be deferred. >> i'd be interested in knowing what that goes up to it's speculative you know, i could envision a scenario where there's increases in the general funds and that money went everywhere but for street lights. seems like there's been a pretty low prioritization >> yeah. the 389 is not the al all-time low while islam i've been involved it's higher than
2:03 pm
it has been. >> it's embarrassing supervisor kim. >> i have a couple of of questions i wasn't following the slides on slide lifting i want to clarify the yellow are the pg&e and what's the red. >> the yellow and red are the series loops and the red where the loops where pg&e had programmed in 2012. >> so when there's a breakdown in one part of the loop it's not going to impact the rest of the loop 92? >> when the loop is converted the whole loop is improved. the old style circuitry t is replaced >> so the black is what we own. >> yes. >> is there a reason for us to
2:04 pm
install the loops in the sfirp. i don't have the background but i know about treasure island. my understanding from actually working with you specifically when there's hard to find where the mechanical default happens one thing we were able to break up treasure island to identify is this a similar situation with the loop so we have to search for where the breakdown happens >> there's a little bit of that but the problem with the series loops their aged and the lack of replacement parts when an outage occurs and the area is identified sometimes, we don't have the components to make the
2:05 pm
repairs. so outages will be longer duration because of that >> they look oddly placed why are there so many in district 7. >> i don't know the history of why this city choose defy types of technology and what would have driven those locations probation officer to be the locations they're in. >> uh-huh. >> i don't know the history sorry. >> and to go back to the average day of cloergz the close out days is incredibly important i want to make sure i understood the slides 8 and 9. so one is the afternoon day of closer for any complaints and the second slide is the afternoon outage >> right. >> that's a simpler fix and the
2:06 pm
other one has the longer number of days. >> right >> could you talk about the efficiency. >> i can talk about it for puc's. >> right. >> from puc's prospective as i mentioned we have not had increased staffing this is how we deliver our resources and how we managing manage our inventor to be sure when a truck roles that crews is going out with the information they need about the light they're going to. we have all our records on our street lights are electronic our maintenance planner looking at that data and say okay. at that light it's, however, any voltages put that one on the
2:07 pm
truck. you know, we really go out more armed and ready to address the issues. we're doing better at using did electronic tools with our skilled and trained staff able to use those systems focusly >> thank you. >> sure. >> so i was talking about a little bit about the street light funding. once we have those funds you know how do we decide what we do first. lots of critical needs. we tend to focus on safety issues first. you know, high crime areas night time accidents 06r789 we hear from the members of the board about areas their constituents are telling them high crime
2:08 pm
areas and sfpd we have to shift our maintenance plan responsive to those changing circumstances out in the street. this list of prioritys is how we focus masonic the safety concerns and not so much the authentic concerns we also hear from the public about. one if the new program areas we have is pedestrian lighting. the cities better cities plan was adapted and better street lights plan was, you know, express the cities interest in encouraging pedestrian lights in corridors. as the chair mentioned, you
2:09 pm
know, those commercial corridors was improved pedestrian left to right become more active spaces so it helps the city economically so in following the deposition of the better street light plan excuse me. my staff and i presented a light policy to the puc the puc accepts ownership for future pedestrian lights. as you see pedestrian left to right systems installed and the neighborhood improvements occur the puc accepts those pedestrian lights and becomes the owner and operator of those pedestrian light as well >> so when a development is happening for example. >> uh-huh. >> and the project sponsor is required to upgrade the lights are those also pedestrian grade
2:10 pm
lights new. >> they've been required to put in street lights and now they have to include a pedestrian component. >> now outside where you have a developer that's required to make investments like lighting how is the puc doing in terms of converting the other 25 thousand into pedestrian packages and the light or the lower left to right is closer to the sidewalk and lights the sidewalks more directly and not blocked by trees. >> right. so it's not just developers that are required to improve the streets with pedestrian lighting now. any street light improvements that trigger lighting improvement trigger both the
2:11 pm
street light and the pedestrian lighting components it could be city supported projects as well. we'll see more funding for pedestrian lighting that way. we are hoping to increase our funding options and have programs planned for street lights excuse me. pedestrian lighting incorporating pedestrian lighting into our future lighting as well. i do want to emphasis you mentioned, you know, posing your question how about the other 25 lights including the pedestrian component. under the better street plan it focused on corridors so we follow that led and focus on commercial corridors. it's consistent with the better streets plan guidance. does that maple they're good for example, there are plenty of
2:12 pm
non-commercial corridor street lights where you can have significant excuse me. lighting problems it comes to mind we set up 4 fairoaks street there are significant issues that the light from the street lights making it down to the sidewalk >> so those sorts of street light tree light clftsz you know we do tree trimming. we can look at you know, i have this funding priority for the allows we need to deputy a priority list for those as well. as we succeed in the funding list we'll have a funding for that. i wanted to say this is adapted
2:13 pm
by the board at the talked about the emphasis >> i understand there are always timetables and authorities is it the puc timetable to include pedestrian grade lighting. i understand there are budget xhrnts >> i don't know it's the puc's policy because we have not posed that question to the commission. as to whether they want pedestrian lights at all locations. we presented the better street lights plan guidance >> for example, we recently learned that along a significant stretch of interrestraining order street puc is replacing all the street lights. so will those replacement street lights include the grade
2:14 pm
>> not at this time the germany restraining order is the existing street lights are failing. we had not had plans for making those improvements this year but because they are failing we have reprogrammed funds to fund the improvements there to avoid the safety hazard that failing to address it would result in so we don't have funding at this time for pedestrian scale lighting or in germany restraining order we're only making an involvement for poles >> it's frustrating once we're out in the street to limit ourselves but we don't have the fund and don't want to take the pause on making the improvements in order to do the design work because those, you know, those
2:15 pm
pelosi poles are failing over we can't wait we need to make the improvements and we are. along with our efforts to improve the street lights generally, we also have an l e d conversion program underway we're funded to convert all of our existing cobra head street lights to left to right technology which is more energy efficient and as supervisor jane kim mention it improves the quality and service of the street light performance. we're including within that led conversion a wireless control system that allows us to remotely monitor the street lights performance and we'll be able to know without having to wait for someone to tells you
2:16 pm
that the street lights are malfunctioning whether a flicker or a dimming in the lighting because the lamp is getting rode to fail or a complete failure. the system will remotely tells us and we'll be able to role a truck. those are more efficient light they use less electricity and last up to 15 years so that should really help us extend the life as well of the fund we have available for street lights. we that won't be bowing and replacing lamps nearly as frequently as we are presently are. this slide shows you where we've done some led conversion of street lamps here in the city. we're at 2 hundred and 92. the full program role out is
2:17 pm
pending some additional pilot work looking at the new extensions for control systems and looking at how the control systems work in san francisco with our high-rises. making sure when we in that case the investment in the remote wireless system it will be an efficient system >> when do you think the led conversion will be complete. >> we expect the process to be complete by march of 2014 and we'll begin the procurement process. at this point we're working with purchasing to prequalify some of the lamp fixtures while we continue to evaluate so by the spring of this year we'll be putting the bid out and receive bids and begin the project role
2:18 pm
out. it will take about two years to complete the install depending on the method we use for that installation whether we hire a contractor or use local, you know, small business owner contractors or use on staff together with pe w >> so as far i've talked about the lights we own and control and operate. as i mention we're responsible for paying for the street lights services when the lights are owned by pg&e. so they own about 43 percent of the lights in san francisco but we pay for out of the puc's budget for the maintenance and control of those lights. pg&e is currently before the public utilities commission
2:19 pm
asking for a rate adjustment. this is managed by the california pg&e and pg&e is requesting a 36.6 percent there for the charges in san francisco. that's as i mention that's pending all the hearings and the process is complete we're waiting for a decision from the california puc to know whether our funding will be increasing and those funds are to allow pg&e to recover their capital expenses. we're charged by pg&e a fee for distributing the electricity. all the lolts whether we own or they own them is power so we're able to minimize our costs of the supply component by
2:20 pm
delivering our own kilowatt hours to those lights. we pay pg&e about $343,000 every year for the distribution component. and we also pay pg&e for transmission to the distribution level. when you look at that on an annual basis in 2013 we'll pay almost 2 million to pg&e for precision maintenance for those street lights that pg&e own in san francisco. if the rate increase goes forward it will be 2.6 million and that's another one of those connoting draws for the limited draw us we have. so when we talk about you how
2:21 pm
much the puc pays for on street lights it's the 24 million there's funds that's for maintenance and repair and replacement >> supervisor kim. >> so this is just on the operations and maintenance. so we currently pay for the operation and maintenance of the pg&e lights >> correct we pay a tariff fee. >> and then cities that i pg&e an established fee for the street light maintenance. >> that's right established by the california ultsz commission. >> i'm sorry. i'm not obey clear. the fee we pay is based on the
2:22 pm
tariff that the c puc they think we're going to pay so much to operate lights no san francisco so let's do a per lamp fee that's the tariff that puc adapts so then pg&e they bill the city per light based on that improved fee or tariff and on an annual basis under the existing rates a that's about $2 million of fees we pay >> why are we paying a tariff if we're paying for the operation and maintenance. >> the tariff is how we pay. >> i see. so in 516 we pay for the operation and maintenance you're referring to those tariffs
2:23 pm
>> yes. >> we're maintaining them. >> and the lights we own we perform the work and pay for it the work that pummeling does - >> and their increasing that tariff for capital improvements for next year. >> that's my understanding. >> so why is pummeling going to take - why not we take ownership of the lights so there's no confusion i mean it's coming out of our city coffers. so where's thefully fair of taking on the capital costs >> yeah. so for example, when we were talking about the series loops. >> uh-huh. >> that organization and m charge does not cover the capital improvements necessary for those loops.
2:24 pm
so if we were to take open ownership of those failing assets then we need to come up with the multiple millions of dollars to consortium them >> uh-huh. >> it comes down to where's the money going to come from in order to improve the performance. so at this point in time we don't have funds appropriated to meet that service obligation >> but if pg&e is going to be increasing or if they're asking for a rate increase because they know the capital improvement is more at some point it's going to come out of our budget we're covering that cost anyway are you suggesting that pg&e actually subsidies that with the tariff increase.
2:25 pm
>> i'm suggesting we don't have the immediate funding capacity and if the hatch which he enterprise - we don't have the credit rating. >> so pg&e can borrow with the funding mechanism. >> at this point we don't have the funds in the bank to make the improvement. if we had the ability to borrow fund we could over cam come that huddle we wouldn't have to pay the miles up front. that's one of the solutions at a time sort of is on the horizon for us. we should be getting a credit rating we're working towards a credit rating this summer together with our cfo >> if they raise the costs and tariffs we're stale going to pay for it. >> yes. but we don't have to
2:26 pm
pay for all of it. if pg&e raises the costs we don't have to pay the $20 million and it will be spread out in a fee over time which we can afford but not next july >> with the rate increase it's physical examinations plan they'll do a lump sum investment or are they going to be slowly improving it. >> they made recommendations at the cu puc they'll be able to make improvements but pg&e will be presenting i don't want to speak for them i can speak more about their capital improvement plans. >> presumably if the puc were
2:27 pm
to purchase the street lights from pummeling there would be an elevation of the street lights and the amount of deferred maintenance presumably or that price would reflect the deferred maintenance. >> right the conversion of the system would be take into account and assigning a value to it so, yes. >> and when rates are set and the puc pays effectively it seems like it is supervisor kim has said puc is putting it up front is there some sort of effective interest rate that we can, tell? because obviously if their front the money i'm wondering if it end up cost the
2:28 pm
puc more if it's not front. >> the answer a yes. pg&e easterners a return on the ones they own and we're funding the return. so, yes. yes >> seem like we should be looking for a way to uniform the street light under the puc. >> and then in terms of improvements recommendation an improvements we're looking at you know, i mentioned the fact we have all of our street maps in all our street lights are electronically vanilla to us and we have an assessment management tool around the street lights. we think that's important and
2:29 pm
helpful to have the same for pummeling system. and that help us answer the question of who owns the lights. today what happens is we look to see if we own them and if we don't we assume pg&e owns them. we know what we own and have a very good record on our ownership of the street light assets. we also recommend that there be standards set for the levels of service regardless of the ownership. we've heard feedback from the businesses and small business owners it's frustrating to make a question for repair not know who is responsible and see the differences in the levels of service and commitment. we have been working with pg&e trying to come to agreement with
2:30 pm
them on levels of service improvements on which we will have electronic mapping of their street light assets. we have not reached an agreement on that. we're also including a broadening of the 311 reported ability. we need to have visibility on the improvements that are being made. i as a manager look to the 311 system as a third party neutral on that. i think we don't have a good sense of the good improvements that pg&e has made. we don't have enough information to respond to the constituent questions we receive and finally, this funding we've been talking about throughout any presentation we've looked at establishing the left to right districts as one way


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on